When folks toss out the well-worn canard, "I don't believe in the teachings of men" one wonders exactly what they do believe then.
Are they claiming that there own private interpretations are not derived from a man? Are they perhaps a wee bit self-righteously claiming that they are fully capable of understanding all of Scripture without ever standing on the shoulders of those that have come before them?
Hopefully, what they really mean is that the teachings of men on matters of the faith are not to be assumed always infallible, and that they bear a responsibility in their own walk of faith of daily Scripture study, prayer, fellowship with like-minded believers, and regular assembly with the faithful to worship God to come to a proper understanding of Scripture.
Not surprisingly, those with the oddest and more curious views on matters of doctrine are often those that refuse to attend a church and submit themselves to its ordained authorities. They are just a bunch of Lone Ranger believers...and it shows whenever they set their hands upon a keyboard.
AMR
Are they claiming that there own private interpretations are not derived from a man? Are they perhaps a wee bit self-righteously claiming that they are fully capable of understanding all of Scripture without ever standing on the shoulders of those that have come before them?
Hopefully, what they really mean is that the teachings of men on matters of the faith are not to be assumed always infallible, and that they bear a responsibility in their own walk of faith of daily Scripture study, prayer, fellowship with like-minded believers, and regular assembly with the faithful to worship God to come to a proper understanding of Scripture.
Not surprisingly, those with the oddest and more curious views on matters of doctrine are often those that refuse to attend a church and submit themselves to its ordained authorities. They are just a bunch of Lone Ranger believers...and it shows whenever they set their hands upon a keyboard.
AMR
